FTA: In flyers and brochures on display at Values Voters, the social conservative conference where Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan spoke, an organization called Modesty Matters criticized women for dressing "immodestly" at church, and blamed women for causing men to stare lustfully at them.

Phyllis Schlafly reads the above, smiles and the cobwebs around her cooter acquire the tensile strength needed to stabilize the cables of the Golden Gate bridge.

rynthetyn:It's pretty much a satire of the area where I grew up. For reals, the show is based on that part of Florida, where there's an utterly baffling mix of people who somehow end up operating in the same social circles. Like, on one hand, I didn't realize until I went off to college that it's really not normal for your parents to be acquaintances with MLB coaches or to grow up hearing stories about how an orange juice magnate secretly donated the money for your mother to stud ...

*sighs with relief and restores farkie*

Still, it is batshiat insane scary that they want to regress to 8th or 7th century BCE Jewish practices.

gadian:God wanted me to dress this way for church. God wants you to keep your eyes above my neck.

(1) Oh no, God wants you to wear way sluttier than that(2a) Fine with me, I have good peripheral vision(2b) Fine with me; you said nothing about where they can be pointed, just they be positioned above your neck when I pointed them.

phalamir:(1) Oh no, God wants you to wear way sluttier than that(2a) Fine with me, I have good peripheral vision(2b) Fine with me; you said nothing about where they can be pointed, just they be positioned above your neck when I pointed them.

violetvolume:blah blah men are uncontrollable animals, women are lustful whores, whatever, we get it, ok, can we move on now?

Nope. because it's not just Christians, you see. As long as guys keep up that "WTF did you expect, stop being such a farking PRUDE! We're men!" shiat when women call them out for treating us like glorified realdolls, we're stuck here. As long as women make themselves the arbiters of how much sex is appropriate for anyone to want (and that amount is "less than they want now"), we're stuck here. As long as feminists keep spreading that "Every man is a potential rapist" shiat to rebel against all that, we're stuck here.

Christianity has influenced our culture to such a degree, it's going to take farking millennia to undo the damage.

demaL-demaL-yeH:rynthetyn: It's pretty much a satire of the area where I grew up. For reals, the show is based on that part of Florida, where there's an utterly baffling mix of people who somehow end up operating in the same social circles. Like, on one hand, I didn't realize until I went off to college that it's really not normal for your parents to be acquaintances with MLB coaches or to grow up hearing stories about how an orange juice magnate secretly donated the money for your mother to stud ...

*sighs with relief and restores farkie*

Still, it is batshiat insane scary that they want to regress to 8th or 7th century BCE Jewish practices.

Yeah, it is scary, especially because we're not talking about uneducated hicks who believe that way. You've got people in major seminaries teaching theonomy, and you've got a lot of politicians who have been influenced by theonomists, but most people don't have a clue that it's even a thing. The problem is that it's ridiculously difficult to argue with a theonomist because despite wanting to return us back to ancient Old Testament law, they're also absurdly relativist. Everything is about "presuppositions", and if you tell them, "Dude, stoning gay people is wrong," they'll be like, "That's just because of your presuppositions, our presupposition is that Law comes from God and that it's set forth in the Bible, so you can't question us wanting to stone people just because your presuppositions are different than ours." You can't argue because they either force you to argue from their presuppositions (which of course reach their conclusion), or else they just won't even listen to you because "it's just your presuppositions." And you can't attack their presuppositions because attacking them is merely demonstrating that you have a different set of presuppositions.

Basically, the only way to win the game is to refuse to play because they've rigged the rules so that you can't win a debate against them. If that whole thing I just wrote about presuppositions seems really convoluted, that's the simplified version, it really is just a ridiculously convoluted logic trap.

rynthetyn:demaL-demaL-yeH: Still, it is batshiat insane scary that they want to regress to 8th or 7th century BCE Jewish practices.

Yeah, it is scary, especially because we're not talking about uneducated hicks who believe that way. You've got people in major seminaries teaching theonomy, and you've got a lot of politicians who have been influenced by theonomists, but most people don't have a clue that it's even a thing. The problem is that it's ridiculously difficult to argue with a theonomist because despite wanting to return us back to ancient Old Testament law, they're also absurdly relativist. Everything is about "presuppositions", and if you tell them, "Dude, stoning gay people is wrong," they'll be like, "That's just because of your presuppositions, our presupposition is that Law comes from God and that it's set forth in the Bible, so you can't question us wanting to stone people just because your presuppositions are different than ours." You can't argue because they either force you to argue from their presuppositions (which of course reach their conclusion), or else they just won't even listen to you because "it's just your presuppositions." And you can't attack their presuppositions because attacking them is merely demonstrating that you have a different set of presuppositions.

Basically, the only way to win the game is to refuse to play because they've rigged the rules so that you can't win a debate against them. If that whole thing I just wrote about presuppositions seems really convoluted, that's the simplified version, it really is just a ridiculously convoluted logic trap.

That is not logic. Do you realize just how absolutely pants-on-fire-on-head retarded that sounds to a man whose religious tradition has been wrestling with the text in the original Hebrew and its supplementary documentation, complete with arguments, nuance, unresolved disputes, and philosophy for millennia?

Married my ex-wife in her very conservative church (Presbyterian, even though the Presbyterian church isn't particularly conservative by nature and is downright "liberal" in contrast to the Southern Baptist/Assembly of God churches that permeate the South), but this particular church was in Tulsa, the buckle of the bible belt. Three years later, the pastor was forced out for farking the church secretary. This being the same pastor who in mandatory pre-marriage counseling sessions had made certain he had pounded home the message of the sinfulness of not only actually having an affair, but even the lusting in your heart.

Had a good friend in law school who's father was a retired Methodist Minister. He had recently "come out of the closet" (not in the gay way, but in the agnostic/atheist way) and he related to me that part of his conversion from Christian to Atheist was that when he looked around and saw how easy it was for so many of the ministers/pastors he knew around him to break their vows, he had concluded that there was no way that they really believed what they were preaching. (He also mentioned that so many of his colleagues straight up confessed their disbelief, like the more exposure to the bible they had, the less and less they believed what it contained.) Very impressive guy, who also warned me about life in the "south" in Christian circles, - that if in the first five minutes of meeting someone, if they brought up the subject of Christianity and started talking about Christ, their church, their faith, etc. to put your hand on the wallet because they were about to either try to rip you off or talk you into giving them money. (this later proved to be amazingly prescient advice)

That's the problem with these religious farks. carrying around all of that sexual frustration makes em crazy. Why do you think those farks in the mid east are so pissed off? They cover their women and even have to dance with each other at social events because touching a woman is like touching the devil. Sorry but any god that would dictate that women must be covered is a stupid god. Women are beautiful to behold and to deny that beauty is in itself a sin. Fark all religion. I quote Ferris Beuller quoting John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me."

demaL-demaL-yeH:rynthetyn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Still, it is batshiat insane scary that they want to regress to 8th or 7th century BCE Jewish practices.

Yeah, it is scary, especially because we're not talking about uneducated hicks who believe that way. You've got people in major seminaries teaching theonomy, and you've got a lot of politicians who have been influenced by theonomists, but most people don't have a clue that it's even a thing. The problem is that it's ridiculously difficult to argue with a theonomist because despite wanting to return us back to ancient Old Testament law, they're also absurdly relativist. Everything is about "presuppositions", and if you tell them, "Dude, stoning gay people is wrong," they'll be like, "That's just because of your presuppositions, our presupposition is that Law comes from God and that it's set forth in the Bible, so you can't question us wanting to stone people just because your presuppositions are different than ours." You can't argue because they either force you to argue from their presuppositions (which of course reach their conclusion), or else they just won't even listen to you because "it's just your presuppositions." And you can't attack their presuppositions because attacking them is merely demonstrating that you have a different set of presuppositions.

Basically, the only way to win the game is to refuse to play because they've rigged the rules so that you can't win a debate against them. If that whole thing I just wrote about presuppositions seems really convoluted, that's the simplified version, it really is just a ridiculously convoluted logic trap.

That is not logic. Do you realize just how absolutely pants-on-fire-on-head retarded that sounds to a man whose religious tradition has been wrestling with the text in the original Hebrew and its supplementary documentation, complete with arguments, nuance, unresolved disputes, and philosophy for millennia?

Oh, no doubt it's batshiat insane and retarded, it's also completely impossible to argue against. Not to mention that theonomists don't just present their whole twisted system to you at once.

As I said, it really boils down to a foundation based on complete relativism. It's little different than the coworker I once had who fancied himself a liberal freethinker, but who was so relativist that he couldn't bring himself to condemn slavery or the holocaust because "that was their belief system, we can't judge them based on our beliefs now."

pacmanner:That's the problem with these religious farks. carrying around all of that sexual frustration makes em crazy. Why do you think those farks in the mid east are so pissed off? They cover their women and even have to dance with each other at social events because touching a woman is like touching the devil. Sorry but any god that would dictate that women must be covered is a stupid god. Women are beautiful to behold and to deny that beauty is in itself a sin. Fark all religion. I quote Ferris Beuller quoting John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me."

rynthetyn: "That's just because of your presuppositions, our presupposition is that Law comes from God and that it's set forth in the Bible,

Solly the Greek really farked up: "Torah" far more closely corresponds to "The Teachings" or "Instruction" than it does "Law".

Read it: It contains stories about ordinary, even unsavory, human beings who try to do better and sometimes go on to accomplish extraordinary things - in spite of themselves - with the help of divine inspiration. Moses was a murderer. Jacob/Israel was a birthright-thieving heel. (That's what Jacob means, by the way, "Heel" - in both the literal and figurative sense of the English word.) Isaac was another younger son inheriting, and a big wuss, to boot. Abraham could have been accused of, well, pimping out his wife. Twice. David was an adulterer and murderer. And so on.

One reason I don't go to my church much lately.. no single women between 16 and 60. And I can count the married women there in that age range on one hand, usually. Yeah, I still get called a young man.

Didn't click on article but, I wholeheartldly support the idea of a wee bit more modesty. I'm not a man (nor am I fat before people come in and suggest that) but, I have seen more rear crack (on all figures, ages etc.), underwear (dirty or otherwise) and skin (in all all shapes, age groups) in the last few years then I really care to see in my lifetime.

Seriously, it can't hurt to cover up a bit--religious or not. A female hairy rear crack just isn't appealing. Period.

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. - Matthew 5:28-29

Both very religious and non-religious straight men will look at an attractive woman walking by and think "Damn, that's the kind of trunk space you want on a late-model car." In the instant following the glance, however, the non-religious dude with think "Hey, I should get out my phone and check my email," whereas the fundamentalist with think "OH NO! I've sinned against God and against by future wife by lusting after that harlot! I've let Jesus down again, and if I keep willfully violating God's commands like that I'm in danger of going to hell! Help me Jesus I'm so sorry I'm scum I'm bad I'm not worthy I'm so sorry forgive me forgive me......Whew. Hey, nice legs at 2 o'clock...Oh No!!"

It's not that fundamentalist guys think that it would ever be justified for them to harass/attack women who dress revealingly, (though they may still think that those skanky girls have it coming from guys less sanctified than themselves.) It's that the self-thought-policing nature of the religion makes any enjoyment of secondary sexual characteristics a grave sin, and since you're supposed to help your brothers in Christ avoid temptation, what good Christian woman wouldn't want to cover up to prevent men from stumbling? It is consistent, if nothing else.

Of course, regardless of the intentions, women wind up with repressive morality codes. Moreover, you can imagine the sort of severe mental issues that can be caused by a couple decades of thinking that boobs will send you to hell.

/ Also, based on all the stories from Tampa, rank-and-file fundamentalists might believe this, but Republican leaders sure don't

So, we finally find out why the 'conservative' christian tea party nutjob hates Muslims. They are jealous. They are upset that the Muslims live in a society ruled by religious fanaticism. They blame Muslims for being evil and what not, but they are pissed off because the Muslims have found some way of getting their people to follow the leaders blindly.

Certain places should have standards, and in this day and age people seem to think they can wear thongs, sweat pants, and sleeveless T-shiats, etc anywhere they go. Show a little class.

I have no problem with specific churches or local organizations having dress codes for events, but forming national coalitions to try to influence national lawmakers to adopt that kind of micromanaging regulatory attitude gets you a big old 100% American go-fark-yourself made right here in the U.S.A.

The First Church of Christ the Wearer of Three-piece Suits doesn't get to tell the campus intramural disc golf and outdoor Christ worship club that they can't wear shorts while catching a frisbee for Jesus, is what I'm saying here.

//You can base your little club on whatever bullshiat you want, but you don't get to tell other people's clubs how to handle their own shiat.

Only a DerpCon 5 Liberal whines about a Christian church having a "church dress code" for women....but says nothing about the rampant abuse of women in Islam. Hypocrites

If you're talking about US churches, Mosques typically don't have divided services either. And in the middle east and eastern Europe where they're common in Islam they're fairly frequent in Christian congregations, it's more of a general cultural thing than a religion-specific thing.

//Assuming genuine ignorance rather than trolling 'cause I'm a nice guy or some shiat.

District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener, who represents the city's Castro district, told The Bay Area Reporter that he is "considering" a legislative proposal on public nudity. "People can have whatever view they want to have on public nudity in general. But to be walking around with a cock ring on or something similar is just not acceptable, responsible behavior," Wiener, who is openly gay, told the publication. "The whole purpose of a cock ring is to draw attention to that area."

DancingElkCondor(farkied: Blithering idiot birther):Only a DerpCon 5bullschitt wingnut strawman version of a Liberal whines about a Christian church having a "church dress code" for women....but says nothing about the rampant abuse of women in Islam. Hypocrites

FTFY, or can you show me some examples of "DerpCon 5 Liberals" who "say nothing about the rampant abuse of women in Islam"?

Or is any criticism of Christians supposed to be followed by "but the Scary Mooselimbs blah blah blah"?

Or are we just not supposed to criticize Christians at all, except for the Scary Black Preacher?

Lee Jackson Beauregard:DancingElkCondor (farkied: Blithering idiot birther): Only a DerpCon 5bullschitt wingnut strawman version of a Liberal whines about a Christian church having a "church dress code" for women....but says nothing about the rampant abuse of women in Islam. Hypocrites

FTFY, or can you show me some examples of "DerpCon 5 Liberals" who "say nothing about the rampant abuse of women in Islam"?

Or is any criticism of Christians supposed to be followed by "but the Scary Mooselimbs blah blah blah"?

Or are we just not supposed to criticize Christians at all, except for the Scary Black Preacher?

Well you know how fragile and precious Christians are in this country. Even though they are the majority in the US, they still feel unfairly treated and persecuted donchaknow.

It seems the underlying notion would be zealous emphasis on "just world" epistemological closure, but I admit I don't have a particularly better word to suggest.

rynthetyn:You can't argue because they either force you to argue from their presuppositions (which of course reach their conclusion), or else they just won't even listen to you because "it's just your presuppositions."

I seem to have had some minimal luck at least confusing that sort by starting from premises apparently too basic to bother denying, but mostly just in confusing the hell out of them.

rynthetyn:As I said, it really boils down to a foundation based on complete relativism.

Aside from the single privileged framework being one arbitrarily selected as attributed to God.

shotglasss:Some people deserve to be hit repeatedly with rocks until they're dead.

The problem is they seem to be more often on the rock-throwing end of the process.

And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you". - from the gospel of John chapter 8

Altar boys dress conservatively, yet it doesn't seem to stop priests from raping them. Maybe the problem is you, rather than the theory that everyone you are lusting after is somehow secretly enticing you against your will?

Only a DerpCon 5 Liberal whines about a Christian church having a "church dress code" for women....but says nothing about the rampant abuse of women in Islam. Hypocrites

I love this apologia: "We don't have the power in the west to get away with the fanaticism common in the middle east, so we haven't resumed stoning adulteresses or burning witches, yet".Great defense, there, sparky.